History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Chandra Padgett
17-4013
4th Cir.
May 31, 2017
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chandra Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chandra Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion in her criminal case. Our review of the district court’s order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). United States v. Davis , 679 F.3d 190, 193 (4th Cir. 2012). While the statute gives us “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,” we lack “jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision.” Id. at 194. Because the sole issue Padgett raises on appeal challenges the district court’s discretionary sentencing decision, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Chandra Padgett
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: May 31, 2017
Docket Number: 17-4013
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.